Wednesday, January 31, 2007

I often ponder that we in the MRM are guilty of not being able to see the forest for the trees. We rant and rail against feminism as if it is the only cause of Western demise. The fact is, feminism is only one face of the subversive Marxist movement to curb freedom and consolidate power. Though, in our defence, feminism is the most vocal and rabid group out there and like the Brown Shirts they emulate, they are easily despised.

But the fact is that it is not just MRA's that are fighting this battle. Before we all go blinking insane trying to rationally argue some sense into feminists and their pussified political mangina lackeys, we should stand back and recognize that ultimately the battle is against Marxism and there are tremendous amounts of people fighting its many different assaults on freedom and the very foundations of Western Civilization.

The problem is that we don't recognize that we are all fighting the same thing, resulting in us being divided - and therefore we are easily conquered, as has been plainly evident for the past several decades.

The main thing that must be realized about the goal of Marxism is that it must first destroy society in order for their new utopian society to emerge from the ruins of the old. This is not a joke! This is a common theme heard over and over again from Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to feminists to gay rights activists. The similarities in their words and thoughts are astounding! What they all agree they must do to bring down the present society is simple:

1 - Eliminate Christianity/religion from society2 - Destroy Marriage and the family unit

These two things must be accomplished before the Marxist utopia can arrive. Why? Because these are two things that exist in society which virtually all men who are committed to them will die to defend. The Marxist elitists will never be able to control the direction of the masses as long as people believe in the unwavering authority of the Bible, nor as long as people have the natural urge to protect and nurture those who they love in "family situations." Marxists need human robots who will do what they are told without causing much of a fuss.

What the cultural Marxists have been brilliant in doing is fracturing their opponents into so many different groups that they are each virtually powerless to launch a counter-offensive.

- Many MRA's are anti-religious, and therefore are alienating themselves to potential allies.

- Some MRA's are for abortion and so they are alienated to anti-abortionists.

- Many father's rights activists only oppose custody and family law - but couldn't be bothered about other draconian laws against men, like biased rape laws.

- Religious activists are for strengthening marriage and are against abortion but many are also proudly proclaimed feminists and would rather light themselves on fire than recant it.

- Those who oppose the evolution theory are written off as religious nuts even though many who question it are not religious at all. (And who told us religion was "nuts" to begin with?)Questioning evolution theory in Western schools is asking for a quick dismissal because it is essential in discrediting religion.

- Environmental groups are hellbent on passing Marxist style restrictions on society, especially since the "Global Warming Report", yet there are many scientists and historians out there who are screaming on apparent media-deaf ears, that since humans have been recording temperatures there have been many dramatic, decades long temperature shifts that are similar to what we are experiencing - both warming and cooling.

The list could go on almost forever about all of the anti-freedom movements that have taken hold since the 60's "anti-establishment movement" has become the "new establishment." And we should all recognize that every one of the groups opposed to the Marxist left has the same frustration with fact distortion, advocacy research, illogical logic and basic bulldozer "Brown Shirt" tactics that MRA's face!

The fact is, those freedom loving hippies from the 60's didn't know the first thing about freedom, but they did get propagandized about Marxism - over and over again. Now they are in power and are carrying out their drug induced utopian vision via any totallitarian means their elitist egos see fit. Marxism has no room for honesty, integrity, civility, logic and the like. Marxists believe the ends justify the means and the "new utopia" is the ultimate end - therefore, they will bulldoze any and all opposition, believing with their elite view that they know best, and the rest of us are just silly children who don't know what's good for them.

It's time for all of the various groups to recognize that we don't have to agree on everything. What we have to do is put our differences aside and defeat our PC Marxist overlords first. We can work out the details later - when we can have free access to all the facts.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Those of you who are Canadian readers may remember the 2002 mini-series "Trudeau" that the tax-subsidised Canadian Pravda (read: the CBC) created with further tax-subsidies. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0299404/) Of course, at the time, Pierre's own Liberal Party held a majority of seats in the Cremlin...erm...Parliament, so it comes as no surprise that Canada's greatest Marxist was hailed as some sort of Canadian hero rather than someone who implemented some of the most damaging and ridiculous legislation in Canadian history. Sigh, I suppose it was only to be expected, for his longtime henchman, Jean Chretien, was in power and he still worshipped the very ground that Trudeau had walked on. Remember Chretien's failed attempt to rename Canada's highest peak, Mt. Logan, as Mt. Trudeau? (A peak in British Columbia did eventually become named Mt Trudeau in 2006 - but it was not Mt. Logan. When Canada's greatest mountain gets renamed, Mr. Chretien, it will be christened "Mt. Fedders.")

This blogger wonders, however, if many of us Canadians recognize precisely how Marxist the "great" Trudeau was, and whether the future history books will view him as kindly as the pro-left (read: need tax dollars just to survive) CBC did.

Here is a very telling article which illustrates exactly how deeply Trudeau believed in Marxism:

He never met a communist he didn't like.That's the reality that all of the adoring eulogies to former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau somehow fail to mention. It was completely expected that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro showed up for Trudeau's state funeral on October 5, after he declared three days of mourning in his totalitarian state. The two were great buddies ever since Trudeau visited Cuba in 1973 and proclaimed "Viva Castro!" One only has to read Armando Valladaras' "Against All Hope" to get a good sense of the moral degeneracy it takes to utter such words about the father of Cuba's concentration camp system.Valladaras, a Cuban poet who spent twenty years of torture and imprisonment for merely raising the issue of freedom, provides the most indicating and heart-wrenching account of Castro's atrocious human-rights record. His book serves as Cuba's version of Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". For Trudeau, of course, there were bigger priorities: cozying up to individuals who put the ideas of socialism into actual practise.Castro, of course, was not alone in enjoying Trudeau's publicly declared endorsements. The same year he pronounced "Viva Castro!" he also praised Mao Tse-tung's revolution in China, stating that Mao had delivered a wonderful system to his people. At that time, it was already well documented in the West that Mao's gulag had liquidated more than 60 million human lives. Trudeau's behaviour becomes understandable in the context of his life-long admiration of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th century French philosopher who, in his famous promotion of the submission of the individual to the "general will," set out the blueprint for genocide-making not only of the French Revolution, but of the Marxist and Nazi revolutions of the 20th century.Thus, in Trudeau's philosophical outlook, the innocent victims of Castro's and Mao's concentration camps were not to be thought about in their human context, but only in abstract terms - if at all. As Prime Minister, Trudeau was enchanted with pacifism -- in the face of "general will" of course. Thus, Trudeau tried to pull Canada out of NATO. Failing that, he succeeded in cutting in half Canada's NATO commitments in Europe, and in decimating the preparedness of his own armed forces at home. Trudeau never forgot about Cuba. In 1976, he made sure to help Castro's effort to liberate Angolan citizens from their individual interests, and to help subordinate them to the "general will." Thus, Trudeau allowed Cuban transport planes to refuel in Newfoundland before they picked up arms in the Soviety Union and flew to Angola to fight for class utopia. One problem was that Castro couldn't help Julius Nyerere, the ruthless communist dictator of Tanzania, whose disastrous Marxist economic policies created large-scale famines. Trudeau came to the rescue. As a great admirer of Nyerere, he made sure that Canada exported free food supplies to the communist dictatorship, most of which the elites grabbed for themselves, and which never reached the individuals who failed to subordinate their interests to the "general will" - which meant the people of Tanzania whom Nyerere didn't feel worth saving. Very little, of course, tingled the human heart as much as the compliments that Trudeau heaved upon the Soviet regime, a system that inflicted genocide on a scale that only Mao could surpass in numbers killed. Trudeau visited the Soviet Union not once, but twice, and on one of the visits he could not restrain himself from praising the way the Soviets had developed their North -- saying that Canada should do the same. Anyone who had the slightest knowledge about the Soviet Union at the time knew that the Soviet North was developed by concentration camp slave labour. Trudeau knew it well. But, of course, he also knew the importance of the "general will." That's why he never apologized to the families of the millions who perished, nor to Soviet dissidents, who were infuriated by his remark. When Trudeau pined for Fidel, he filled that void by palling around with the Soviet ambassador to Canada, Alexander Yakovlev. He also signed a "friendship protocol" with the Soviets, a friendship of which he was genuinely proud. In light of these realities, it might do well to build a Lenin-style mausoleum on Parliament Hill for the late Prime Minister. It would be the least Canadians could do in memory of Canada's great humanitarian leader, whose life was dedicated to praising those who had sacrificed human life on the altar of utopian ideals.

Well, that's pretty revealing about the great Trudeau, isn't it? He most certainly had Marxist sympathies, didn't he? But, lets have a look at some other earlier facets of his life which are also just as revealing of how deeply involved Pierre was in Cultural Marxism all along.

"...In 1949, he was an active supporter of workers in the Asbestos Strike. In 1956, he edited an important book on the subject, La grève de l'amiante, which argued that the strike was a seminal event in Quebec's history, marking the beginning of resistance to the conservative, francophone clerical establishment and anglophone business class that had long ruled the province. Throughout the 1950s, Trudeau was a leading figure in the opposition to the repressive rule of Premier of QuebecMaurice Duplessis as the founder and editor of Cité Libre, a dissident journal that helped provide the intellectual basis for the Quiet Revolution.Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democraticCo-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the US and prevented from entering the country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow (where he was arrested for throwing a snowball at a statue of Stalin) and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications. Trudeau later appealed the ban, and it was rescinded."

So, it is obvious that Trudeau was an extreme leftist (Marxist) all along, note the "divide by class and conquer" ideology displayed by his involvement in the Asbestos strike which was deeply marked with socialist idealism. Especially Marxist was his involvement in the "Quiet Revolution" which had the result of Quebec creating a Ministry of Education and involved massive tax-funding into the education system, the unionization of the civil service, and the nationalizing of electricity production and distribution. All of these are highly socialist ideals and right up a Cultural Marxist's alley.

In 1965, Pierre Trudeau abandoned his allegience to the far left NDP party which he had been affiliated with and was persuaded to run for political office on the Liberal ticket for the riding of Mount Royal, an election he easily won and a riding he would hold for the nearly 20 years. It is too bad however, that Trudeau did not abandon his Marxist idealism when he left the NDP. If anything, Trudeau should be attributed with transforming the Liberal party into the far leftist NDP party - which naturally leaves one to wonder exactly how far left the current NDP has to be for it to be regarded to the political left of the Liberals.

Pierre rose quickly through the ranks of the Liberal party and along the way he spread his anti-social agenda like Johnny Marxist Seed. In 1967 he was appointed to the position of Justice Minister and he immediately introduced laws which eerily coincide with the Marxist agenda. In previous posts I have pointed out how Marx & Engels, V.I. Lenin and feminists have targeted marriage-destruction as the way to destroy society - in order to build their new utopia from the ashes of its ruins. Please allow me to briefly review some quotes with you for relevance:

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040116So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified. (From Carey Roberts' article: "When Family Dissolution becomes the Law of the Land".)

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969And so, what did the great Canadian Marxist, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, do the moment he had the means to implement his agenda?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/trudeau/footprint.html"...Pierre Trudeau came to champion the values of individual freedom and equality, and to condemn the idea that we remain captives of our race, religion, class or collective history. He did not, however, denigrate cultural identity. He believed that the state should protect cultural values, but under the rubric of equality. It should not privilege the majority. As minister of justice, Mr. Trudeau began to put these ideas into effect. He introduced legislation permitting therapeutic abortions, legalizing adult consensual homosexual acts, allowing the dissemination of birth-control materials and contraceptive information, and authorizing judicial divorce based on a range of fault and no-fault grounds." (The Globe and Mail: Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1919-2000, by Lorraine Weinrib, Oct 2000)

As Stephen Baskerville often points in his articles, http://stephenbaskerville.net/articles-bydate.htm , there never was a massive uprising of the people back in the 60's demanding no-fault divorce laws... um, so for what other reason did politicians like Trudeau rush to pass anti-family laws such as this - except to promote a Cultural Marxist agenda?

All this and our Marxist hero was only yet the Minister of Justice! In the same year, 1967, Lester B. Pearson announced he would be stepping down as Prime Minister. Pierre Trudeau ran for the Liberal party leadership and was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada on April 20, 1968.

As Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre "Marxist" Trudeau continued his scourgeous ideologies upon the people of Canada.

He strongly defended the universal healthcare program and regional development programs which had been recently introduced in Canada under the guise that they were a way to make Canadian society equally just. Today, this Marxist system has proven to be a vast waste of money which provides services similar to the quality of a Russian breadline. But it is still strongly supported by our governments because it is part of our "national identity." (What, lousy healthcare is our culture?)

He vastly depleted our armed forces, which, after WWII were considered the 3rd most powerful in the world and continued a noble existence through to the 50's and 60's. Today, they could scarcely defend Mt. Trudeau. In the face of all of this, Trudeau set Canada forward on the biggest socialist spending spree ever seen in Canadian history - and Trudeau himself can lay claim to a vast portion of our HUGE national debt. All this debt, no military, but we have statefunded healthcare! The US, who spends VAST resources on their military has their "tax freedom day" in April of each year, while we in Canada have to wait for the beginning of July for ours. (How much health insurance could you buy with 2 months of your wages?)

Pierre Trudeau championed the cause of "Multi-Culturalism", a well know ploy of Cultural Marxist ideology. As well he shoved the notion of "bilingualism" down the throats of Canadians, forcing much red-tape on a general population that is anything but bilingual. It was, however, effective in keeping many anglophones out of political office and federal positions. Must have been more of that anglophones "oppressing" francophones crap, or something. Something Trudeau must have known all about since he was involved in the "Quiet Revolution" which claimed that the "anglophone business class" was oppressing the "francophone working class." (Ummm... sound familiar?)

Oh yes, and lets not forget, The Ministry for the Status of Women was created in 1971, under guess who's reign?

Pierre Trudeau nationalized Canada's energy (communism-ized) and he also created Petro-Canada, an organization which proved profit is ellusive to big goverment and became known as "Pierre Elliot Trudeau Ripping Off Canada." When the government finally took their fingers out of Petro-Canada and privatized it, magically...somehow... this company actually became profitable.

Yes, Pierre Trudeau truly transformed the Liberal party into something far more Marxist than was intended with its original founding. Even after Pierre thankfully bowed out of the public spotlight in the 80's, the Liberals have proudly carried in his fine tradition. Jean Chretien, Trudeau's favourite lackey, siezed power and continued a Liberal campaign of terror against Canadians via oppressive domestic violence laws, hysterical sexual assault laws, and punative divorce and custody laws. Of course, lets not forget the totalitarian styled Gun Registry implemented by Liberal Justice Minister Alan Rock - a law which cost billions & didn't affect crime one iota, yet stripped Canadians of yet more freedoms. But thats OK, it just means that when these anti-freedom "civil servants" are one day condemned for treason, there won't be any guns for a firing squad, so we'll just have to have ourselves an old fashioned stoning.

And surely let's not also forget the heroic efforts of Chretien's post-Trudeau Liberal government in "balancing the budget" and saving us from the impending financial destruction which Chretien himself helped to create when he was Trudeau's Cultural Marxist handjob lackey in the 70's and 80's. Only Goebels himself could have believed that a dumb like a fox fellow like Chretien could have pulled off such a major propaganda coup on the Canadian public and come out looking like a hero.

Even today, the Liberal party is infected with this anti-social disease. In the last election, which the Liberals finally lost, they campaigned for State Run Daycare! Need I re-point you to the quote about Lenin found earlier in this article? (The troubling thing is that even the "right-wing" Conservative party agrees with "subsidizing other people's children" by countering state-run daycare with directly giving people with children tax-payer money to subsidize childcare costs - definitely a Marxist ideal, from the supposed right!) Let's take notice of the "Mangina of the Year, 2006", previous Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae who's campaign buttons depicted the word "Bob" with the top of the female gender symbol making the "o" in Bob. And let's not forget Liberal MP, Maria Minna, recently screaching and hollering at Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper about women receiving $0.71 for every $1.00 a man earns. Hopefully someone with the great responsibility of representing "the people" is smart enough to know that such unfair wages have been made illegal well over 40 years ago - and if she is that smart, wouldn't she be willfully engaging in hate-inspired propaganda? (Hmmm... me thinks that is another hallmark of Marxism!)

Yup, Trudeau was a freakin' Marxist alright! And he infected not only the Liberal party with sick Marxist ideology, but the whole country as well!

It's a shame that my province is home to the newly named "Mt Trudeau." At least it wasn't Canada's highest peak. But still, degrading a beautiful British Columbian mountain with this moniker is truly a crime against nature.

I know of a steaming pile of something behind the barn that would be better fitting of the name "Mount Trudeau."

Friday, January 19, 2007

I came across the website "Anti-Sexism for Idiots" about a year ago, read it completely, enjoyed it thoroughly, and then let it slip from my mind. Recently, I stumbled across it again, and have decided to read it through over this weekend again, and thought that I would throw a link up - in case some of the rest of the you haven't surfed through it and are looking for something constructive to do with your time on a dreary January weekend.

From their lofty moral high ground, feminists have applied women’s superior ways of knowing to gently remind us male heathens that we just don’t “get it”. I would like to return the favour. Here are some things that feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around.

Feminists complain about the under-representation of women in the workplace. They want to enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They don’t get it that for men, work is not a hobby. They don’t get it that for men, work is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you, something you do to while away the hours. For the vast majority of men, not working is not an option. Men do not have the freedom to stay at home to rear the children if they like, or to do nothing particular if their fancy takes them, or to do the shopping if they’re bored, or to get a part-time job to make friends, or to watch the soapies to have something to talk about.

Feminists don’t get it that higher paying jobs aren’t generously bestowed on men out of the goodness of their bosses’ hearts, just because they are men. They don’t get it that if women were as efficient as men and as profitable as men to employ, then there would have to be something seriously, gravely wrong with any organisation choosing men over women, just because they are men. Feminists just don’t seem to understand that organisations function according to the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, and make those recruitment decisions most likely to benefit the bottom line. To do otherwise is to deserve to fail.

They don’t get it that if a majority of women don’t want to do certain types of work, then perhaps it might be a little difficult balancing the numbers. Feminists don’t get it that focusing on equal outcome instead of equal opportunity is not equality but bias. If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in government or in coal mines, what do you do if a majority of women prefer not to work, or if they prefer not to expend the same effort and commitment to their careers as what men are required to do? If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in parliament, what do you do if you can’t find women who want the job badly enough? Recruit check-out chicks? Or bored housewives?

Feminists don’t get it that mowing the lawn, or repairing the car, or painting the bedroom, is domestic work. They think that men do these things to get out of doing the dishes.

The statistics from the feminist website, Gender Gap in Government, will shock you. WOMEN ARE 52% of the adult population, yet even after over 3 decades of affirmative action, women have barely dented the ranks of politicians. Are women really be this lazy?

Feminists don’t get it that women's failure to participate is not due to oppression. Instead of blaming others for their own laziness, they should look inwards. Feminists' cherished statistics prove conclusively that even today, with all the affirmative action policies that have been enshrined in law, with everything that has been done to facilitate women’s access to men’s jobs without their having to earn them, women are still not pulling their weight. Feminists don’t understand that they have now provided us with proof of what we have known all along - that women are bone lazy, and that they never actually wanted to work.

Feminists don’t get it that when women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom, they are more likely to pull out of the career paths that might otherwise lead to higher salaries. Stay-at-home moms are less likely to have the sort of career experience that pays well. The presence of the stay-at-home escape-hatch profoundly influences the choices that women make.

They don’t understand that only men fight wars, pollute environments and generally, do the dirty-work also of women, because women are too comfortable in the security provided by men to be bothered to do it themselves.

They don’t get it that the reason that the majority of people over 60 who are now living in poverty are women is that they are more likely to have been married to providers who are now dead.

Feminists don’t get it that when a woman dresses to be looked at, she’s going to be…… looked at. They don’t get it that when a woman dresses to lure, she’s going to be…… approached. Perhaps it's a bit too deep for them. It is a rather difficult notion well beyond feminists’ grasp, as it is founded in abstract, rational principles (rationality) foisted on everyone by The Patriarchy.

They don’t get it that women’s fantasies about being raped reveal a secret about women’s sexuality. They don’t get it that rape scenes in novels written by women for women derive their appeal from tapping into this private side of feminine nature. They don’t understand the connection between their thoughts and their longings or the duality that exists between being protected and being violated. Sure, feminists reassure us, rape is terrible and just because a woman fantasises about being raped, does not mean that she wants to be raped. What they don’t get is that women’s unspoken secrets can influence and justify (in their minds) the choices that women make, in fashion and in men. They don’t understand that the thrill of dressing to lure, to be desired, to be dominated and to be taken, can come at a price and so, has its responsibilities.

They don’t get it that when women choose wallets without character, they might finish up with characters who won’t share their wallets.

Feminists don’t get it that, when a man cheats on his wife, there is usually a woman who cheats with him. And no, it’s not because of something he put in her drink.

They don’t get it that when women say no and then give in to the types of jerks least likely to take no for an answer, other men are going to have a hard time believing that no means no.

Feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around the fact that, the women that enforce, supervise and participate in the tribal African custom of female genital mutilation are not, actually, men dressed in drag. And no, the fact that men generally do not participate in sacred women’s rituals (such as FGM) does not mean that innocent mothers, grand-mothers and aunties have had their drinking-water drugged by scheming patriarchs.

They don’t get it that when women wear fashions and apply lipstick and makeup in order to deceive men, they are not helpless victims of a Beauty Myth, but active participants, motivating companies to give them more of what they demand

Feminists don’t get it that blaming men for the oppression of women is like blaming mothers for the oppression of little boys. And little boys become men. They don’t understand that what goes around comes around.

They don’t get it that feminism is the princess syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. They don’t understand that feminism cannot exist without chivalry, without Patriarchy’s Galahads who have traditionally always done women’s dirty-work.

There is so much that feminists don’t get, one can be forgiven for wondering whether there is something inherent in the nature of femininity that precludes women from understanding the most basic, simple logic. With women’s silence and complicity while the injustices rage against men, we might forgive those who regard feminism as proof that women are less able than men in almost every sphere of life. You will have to be patient with them. You will have to remind them that feminism is not about women, but about chivalry, and feminist women demanding and extracting privileges from men. If feminist women are nincompoops, what does that make the men that so readily comply with their demands?

"... the first premise for the emancipation of women is the re-introduction of the entire female sex into public industry; and ... this again demands that the quality possessed by the individual family of being the economic unit of society be abolished''' (Engels).

" ... Public dining rooms, creches, kindergartens - these are examples of the shoots, the simple everyday means, which assume nothing pompous, grandiloquent or solemn, but which can in fact emancipate women, which can in fact lessen and abolish their inferiority to men in regard to their role in social production and in social life" (Lenin).

These quotations encapsulate the mission of the proletarian revolution finally to put an end to the social inferiority of the female sex, by removing every last barrier to women's participation in social production on an equal basis with men. The victory of socialism in the USSR and other socialist countries brought final proof of the correctness of this, the Marxian, thesis on the woman question -US women were systematically freed from their age-old shackles of domestic slavery for the first time to show that anything men can do, women can do too.

The aim of this book is four-fold - namely (1) fully to familiarise readers with this Marxian analysis; (2) to celebrate women's emancipation in the socialist countries which provides incontrovertible evidence in support of the correctness of the Marxian analysis; (3) to expose the false ideology of women's liberation being peddled by petty bourgeois elements in the movement; and (4) to demonstrate how in practice revisionist and Trotskyite opportunists work in the women's movement, as in the general working-class movement, against Marxism, and against women actually achieving their liberation. The aim of the book is to arm advanced workers with the knowledge and understanding that will enable them to bring together an invincible mass organisation of women) with a proletarian orientation and a correct programme for their liberation, to fight for proletarian revolution and their own emancipation.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." (Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex")

Monday, January 15, 2007

BRITISH COLUMBIA – There has been an ongoing political battle in British Columbia that receives scant attention by the main stream media, yet it concerns something that most decent Canadians would consider the most important issue of one’s life. It is the issue of raising your own child in the way you believe to be best. What would any parent deem more important than the proper raising of their own child? But this is exactly what gay rights activists are now after: the “right” to indoctrinate other people’s children with their own politically charged sense of morality.

Back in the late 1990’s, gay activists Peter Cook and Murray Warren filed a complaint against BC’s Ministry of Education for not adequately addressing the issue of sexual orientation in school curriculum. The complaint did not receive much attention until Bill C-38 was implemented in the summer of 2005, allowing homosexual “marriage.” Cook and Warren were among the first in Canada to be “married” and subsequently changed their surnames to the cutesy combination of “Corren.” Soon after C-38 became law, the new husband and husband team went into action by saying that because gay marriage is now legal, it is even more urgent to change the school curriculum to reflect this new “reality.” (Does anyone else remember the gay rights claim that allowing gay marriage would have absolutely no effect on heterosexual families?)

Murray Corren, who is an elementary school teacher in Port Coquitlam, told the Vancouver Sun, “There is systemic discrimination through omission and suppression in the whole of the curriculum.” Although further questioning forced Corren to admit that nothing in the present curriculum is actually anti-homosexual, he still claims that because the curriculum does not highlight prominent gays in history, this “has the effect of enforcing… the assumption that all people are or should be heterosexual.”

The BC Teacher’s Federation Union expressed their support for the Correns’ claim.

So, the Correns left the warmth of their marital bed and pressed forward by taking their activist mission to the BC Human Rights Commission where they were scheduled to have a hearing in April 2006. They never made it to the hearing, however, because the BC Government felt it would be prudent to capitulate to the Correns demands and settle the case beforehand. In exchange for dropping the complaint, the government agreed to make homosexual issues a mandatory part of school curriculum that will reflect “inclusion” of the homosexual lifestyle by portraying it in a positive light which asserts that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. The six page agreement also granted the Correns the exclusive right to appoint their own “experts” on homosexual issues for the revisionist activities. They will get to decide what material gets presented as well as deciding who will get the job of revising it.

Murray Corren has stated that the new K-12 curriculum will reflect the following: “Queer history and historical figures, the presence of positive queer role models – past and present – the contributions made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilizations and legal issues relating to (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-gendered) people, same-sex marriage and adoption.”

Well, at least he has no intention of changing the curriculum for Foods and Nutrition classes – yet.

Susan Martinuk, of the National Post, makes a good point when she states in her column: “It is the ultimate in revisionist history to define its players by their sexuality and to assume that their sexual proclivities played a major role in determining their acts and contributions to history. (Could it be that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s heterosexual orientation led him to impose the GST?)”

While Ms. Martinuk makes a really good point, a fellow such as myself might find it easy to take the Correns’ homo-supremacist ideals and completely turn it against them by saying something like: Canada had the world’s third most powerful navy at the end of WWII because it was comprised of 100% heterosexuals. Or perhaps, by the Correns’ ideology, they will also acknowledge that former Member of Parliament, Sven Robinson, turned into a shoplifting thief because he was gay.

No, I don’t think they’ll go for that either.

However, the most disturbing aspect of this whole crooked backroom deal is that the Correns have somehow managed to strong arm the government into making the new material mandatory – parent’s will not be allowed the usual “opt out” course of action when dealing with sensitive materials. The Correns have convinced the government that allowing parents the option of removing their children from the new curriculum will not be “respecting of diversity.” (Yes, that’s right, read that sentence again). So as part of the agreement, the Correns have managed to remove homosexuality from the “sensitive issues list” which would have allowed parents to legally pull their children from classes when teaching these issues.

Murray’s husband Peter made the following statement to the Province Newspaper: “There’s no point in us making the curriculum more queer positive if people can take their kids out. This is the public education system. The School Act is quite clear… religion does not play a role in what is taught. We just want the policy to be followed.”

Of course, it doesn’t appear that the Correns are all that proficient in the respecting of diversity, does it? Apparently, the Correns fail to recognize that even many non-religious people may object to the forced homosexual desensitization and indoctrination of their children. They also fail to realize that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a hands down trump card over the School Act – and the Charter guarantees the right to religious freedom. Perhaps if the Correns wish to disregard the Charter guaranteed rights for religion, then they also won’t mind the general public disregarding the Charter guaranteed rights for sexual orientation? It was the Charter of Rights that granted gays the right to be married in the first place… disregard the Charter and well… Yeah, I didn’t think so either. It’s best for them to stick to blatant hypocrisy then.

These forced changes have not gone completely without notice, however. This past August, 900 protesters gathered at Premier Gordon Campbell’s constituency office in an effort to bring attention to the manner which the school curriculum was changed without input from parents or the public. K. John Cheung, of the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJAFVA) said to Life Site News: “We want the same opportunities to participate in the revision process and give input. We don’t want to see this process ending up completely one-sided.” CASJAFVA has gathered over 15,000 signatures on a petition which was presented to those in government and demanded of them “to defend and to preserve parental and children’s rights” and to “stop selling out to special interest groups.”

But the government has employed the “let’s do lunch” tactics with the CASJAFVA. They were promised a meeting with the Minister of Education on June 20th, but the meeting was postponed until July and then the minister “neglected” to show up for that meeting. CASJAFVA subsequently rescheduled another appointment for August 31st, but before that meeting took place, the Ministry informed the CASJAFVA that the minister would not meet with them until the middle of September – after the changes had already taken place.

Isn’t it great to see how the government values two gay people who can’t have children of their own over 15,000 concerned parents? Viva la democracy!

So, fellow Canadians, when you sit down at night to help your child study for that history test, don’t be surprised when you open the textbook to the French Revolution and read Marie Antoinette’s revised statement: “Let them eat pie.” After all, gay rights activists, the BC Teacher’s Federation Union and the BC Government seem to have forgotten the lesson which that story teaches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

Two anonymous posters left comments to my post titled “The Big Lie” which I will address here rather than in the comments area, for I imagine this will be a long post, as is always the case when one tries to untwist the deceit that feminism has wrought upon society with their supremacist cultural Marxist ideology.

***

Anonymous 12:10pm said:

"ok there, you may want to watch your words, because by acting as an asswhole you are only lowering yourself to the level of those so called modern feminists. Yes you read this properly, i do mean modern feminism. Unlike you, i am am woman, and like you i despise modern feminism. I have never studies feminism so i can't really say whether there are or aren't different kinds of feminism, but you can't deny the fact that different types of feminism did actually exist throughout modern recent history (100 to 200 years ago). I mean, as much as i despise modern feminists, lets face the fact that the first "feminists', called the suffragettes, did a wonderful work, and eventually did bring the right of vote to women and equality in our western societies. It is the modern feminists that have lost their goals and their minds. We have to be careful here not to mix both, since the first "feminists" did bring equality, the modern feminists destroyed it. There is no more equality, neither for men, neither for women. It is a full blown war where in the end we both lost and still loosing, to the point where we both become slaves to a society runed by by multinational corporations. Think about it, there is no winner, neither women, neither men. We are both suffering from this and refusing to see it.There is no point, for any man, to lower himself to the level of those modern feminists and act as a bunch of idiots like they do. If you are that bright, fight them in smarter ways, above their level. Be smarter than they are, go ahead in stopping this stupid war and rebuilt an actual equalitarian society. Show those feminists how stupid and wrong they are, through positive action. Do not spit back at them, since it is only proving their point, which we do not want, since we know those feminists are crazy. There is no point in responding the hatered by hatered.Act in a smart and positive way. Humans can be stupid, good, evil, intelligent, etc, no mater what sex they belong to. yes it may take time, a longer time, or shorter time to achieve these goals, depending on how ell you men use your resources, and yes there are some or many women out there who support you, in the same way some men claim to be feminists. Find them and ask them their opinions, and their support.

Forget anger and revenge. choose love and forgiveness, the only way to fight hatred, yes it may sound idealistic, but agin you can't fight hatered with hatered, if you do not like my propositions, think of something better. good luck, but coose the right path into dealing with this, to you or any male activist."

***

.

The official reply from No Ma'am:

OK, first of all, there is no point in a woman leaving comments about “asswholeness” and then going on with shaming talk about how men are supposed to behave on-line. The shame tactics immediately employed by women are despicable and annoy many a man. All but the most mangina-fied of men ARE SICK TO DEATH OF IT! Many of the older generation of men floating around online have been opposed to feminism since the 60’s and 70’s, and one thing that is apparent is: Men have been trying to take the high-ground in their dealings with feminism for decades AND IT GETS THEM NOWHERE! If you only knew how many women I have gently discussed issues with, only to get NOWHERE with them in the end. Ultimately, it is becoming painfully evident that women really don’t care about men’s plight and certainly don’t want to bother with such annoying things as “justice.” Women really only get concerned about men when they realize that something a man does or doesn’t do affects women. For the rest, women really just don’t care.

.

An example would be the looming “man tax” that feminism has been pushing with their Marxist agenda. Most women will readily agree with this and think it is a good idea, to even out the wage gap that they so falsely believe in. But, then if you explain to them that “man tax” will lower their husband’s (primary breadwinner) pay, and therefore his wife and children will have less money – then women will be opposed to it. Never does it seem to occur to women that the whole notion of “man-tax” or its partner, affirmative action, are horribly unjust. Nope, the injustice doesn’t bother the ladies… what bothers the ladies is if some action taken against men affects her in some way. This is a theme that is coming out time and time again. Have a look at many of the women that are getting involved in the Father’s Rights Movement. Why are most of them there? Not because they believe men’s rights are being trampled, but rather because they are grandmothers who can’t see their grandkids due to a divorcing wife – or they are a second wife who is complaining that the first wife is draining her family’s resources. It is truly an anomaly to find a woman speaking up for men solely for the sake of justice because 99.9% of the time it is all about her.

.

We men have tried to be nice, we have brought forth good, solid, logical discussions advocating for our cause… and do you know what we get in return… ***crickets chirping***… yeah, 40 years of men being “nice” and trying to take the high ground got them in a worse situation than where they were before.

.

So, anonymous, please stop imposing your self declared sense of female moral authority on men. It is insulting. Just because it bothers you that you, as a woman, are starting to see men treat women the same way that women have been treating men, doesn’t give you any justification for running around and decrying that men cannot fight hatred with hatred. Nope, can’t fight guns with guns, eh? Where were you for the last 40 years when feminists were calling for the steady erosion of men’s rights based on hatred? What did you say when all your girlfriends were sniggering over Bobbit jokes? Do you lecture your lady friends on their blatant display of hatred towards men when they chuckle at men getting raped in prison?

.

You have my permission to impose your moral authority on your female counterparts, but after 40 years of blatant hatred against men, it is really rich for a woman to come here and give a shaming lecture like this. What’s next, are you going to tell the Jews that they should treat Nazis with kindness, because that is the only way? The next time you see a “Take Back the Night” march to end violence against women and children; will you step out and lecture those women for promoting falsities and hatred towards men? If not, then what gives you the moral authority to lecture any man about anything on how they should behave?

.

Hate bounces. Get used to it..Long live MGTOW!.As for the different types of feminism throughout the ages, while they may look different to you, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: All feminism, from around 150 years ago to the present, is heavily based in Marxism.

.

This article from Carey Roberts is very revealing of the "good" feminists of old:

In recent years, the battle of the sexes has escalated into a full-fledged gender war. This conflict is playing out in the boardroom, the courtroom , and the bedroom.

.

What is the origin of this feminist assault?

.

And as early as 1886, Eleanor Marx, youngest daughter of Karl, issued this indictment: "Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers."

.

The linkage between socialism and American feminism can be traced back to the earliest years:

.

- Susan B. Anthony held a 1905 meeting with Eugene Debbs, perennial socialist candidate in the US presidential elections. Anthony promised Debbs, "Give us suffrage, and we'll give you socialism." Debbs shot back, "Give us socialism, and we'll give you the vote."

- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a member of the Woman's Committee of the New York Socialist Party. In her book, Women and the New Race, Sanger wrote: "no Socialist republic can operate successfully and maintain its ideals unless the practice of birthcontrol is encouraged to a marked and efficient degree."

- Mary Inman was an ardent feminist and Communist in the late 1930's and early 1940's. During that era, the Communist Party of the USA often used the phrase "white chauvinism" to refer to racial prejudice. It was Inman who reworked that phrase to coin the term, "male chauvinism."

.

- Simone de Beauvoir was a well-known socialist with Marxist sympathies. In "The Second Sex," she lionized socialism as the ideal for gender relationships: "A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised."

.

(Rob says: here is a link where one can read de Beauvoir's Marxist statement: "Private property appears: master of slaves and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also of woman....Here we see the emergence of the patriarchal family founded upon private property. In this type of family, woman is subjugated." http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch03.htm )

.

- Betty Friedan went to great lengths to cover up the facts of her Communist past: her membership in the Young Communist League, her 1944 request to join the American Communist Party, and her work as a propagandist for Communist-led organizations in the the 1940's.

- Gloria Steinem once admitted, "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era, and that made me a Marxist." (Susan Mitchell: Icons, Saints and Divas, 1997, p. 130) Later, Steinem joined the Democratic Socialists of America.

In her book "Red Feminism," Kate Weigard makes this startling admission: "This book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."

In the 1840's, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.

.

This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: "What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production."

.

In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression:

.

"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children."

So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.

.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."

.

But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon disolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

.

First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties.

.

Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.

.

But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes.

.

In his recent book, "Perestroika," Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: "We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children's and young people's behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties."

But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondly - and this is the main thing - they remain in household bondage, they continue to be "household slaves," for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.

.

Gee... this sounds familiar, doesn't it? And this is what the "feminists of old" believed in, and this is what modern feminists believe as well.

It originated in the early writings of Vladimir Lenin and evolved as a concept in his work up to 1917. The phrase "politicheskaya pravil'nost'" derived from Lenin's insistence on a rigidly enforced party line on all questions. Lenin argued that only a specifically revolutionary theory would prevent the revolutionary movement from abandoning "the correct path". Before the Russian revolution, to be politically incorrect meant being denounced by Lenin as a "revisionist", "factionalist", "wrecker", and "enemy of the people". After the revolution, to be politically incorrect meant a death warrant. Joseph Stalin used the phrase in the 1920's to destroy his rivals Trotsky and Bukharin.

.

Ah... one might say, but what we have today is not really like the Communism of the past, and in that one would be somewhat correct. "Old" Communism was an act of revolution, but it has now been purposefully morphed into "Cultural Marxism". While I will not heavily get into this aspect of Cultural Marxism, you can read exactly how this transformation was purposefully put to use by reading the following links in regard to the "Frankfurt School":

And yes, this Marxist dark side of feminism is alive and well even today. Read this link about Hilary Clinton's past ties to Marxism: http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A5_0_4_0_C/ It is very revealing to see how the future first female US President, a world renown feminist, has her own ties to communism. And to see that Marxism is still alive in Hilary, the great feminist hope, one needs only to look at her proposing of the "Paycheck Fairness Act". http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050426

.

On April 19 Senator Clinton introduced the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, a law that would pressure employers to fatten women's paychecks, regardless of the number of hours worked or job qualifications.

.

And of course, after reading the above in regard to how Lenin instituted state run daycares and subverted the patriarchal family with government services... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Hilary Clinton is really saying when she states "It takes a village to raise a child", does it?

.

What do you suppose Norway's law to mandate 40% of all company executives be women is? Or how about proposals in Britain & Canada to preferentially short-list women for Member of Parliament positions? Those actions are 100% Communist & Totalitarian!

.

So, as one can evidently see, ALL FEMINISM is based directly in Marxism. Feminism = Marxism, even the "old feminism" from the sufragettes. There is nothing noble about feminism, not even the old feminism.

.

And don't get me wrong, it's not that women shouldn't have the vote, or be allowed to work, or shouldn't be "equal"... but let's get one thing straight here, FEMINISM = COMMUNISM! It always has been about communism, from the very beginning. This is entirely separate from the right to vote or the right to work. One must understand that feminism has been active in historical revisionism, something which is also commonly encouraged by all Marxist states where they believe "the ends justifies the means."

.

There is no such thing as a "good" feminist.

.

Period.

.

Nice time is over, Anonymous, there are no more lovey dovey feelings. That has been tried for 40 years and it has failed miserably. Now is the time to get angry, for another 10 or 20 years may be too late.

.

***************************

.

Well, onto the second Anonymous's comments, shall we?

.

Anonymous 12:45pm said:

.

"Any definition which includes the word "feminism" in it promotes the false belief that women were/are oppressed by men and need to be liberated."

.

Ok, you are right and wrong about this. While you are right to confirm the fact that women were not oppressed, it is only true up to a certain point in time. This may sound nasty, especially that i have no scientific proof on which to rely on but only common sense. Oppression against women did exist. I mean there was oppression of men by men and women by men to some extent. And my point is that this oppression has grown very fast in north america, relatively recently, among european settlers. there is no other place in the world where feminism is as strong as in North america. it is most likely that this oppression you talk about most likely started among extremist christian groups who first emigrated to the Americas. now this is very crude but so true, those extrmists were loosers in old Europe, kicked out, so they came to a new potential world, why, because they were extremists (at least they became so once here) In the same way that Australia used to be a British colonial prison, America is the place where extremist loosers thrived, thirsty for power. So obviously down the road they also started breeding those angry thirsty of power feminists.

mind you, these days, those feminists are found all over the world.

.

So while it is true that even all men did not always had the right to vote, why when this right was allowed to every men wasn't allowed to every women as well? SO i guess this is the moment when the balance between sexes shifted, because even though for the longest time women may have been treated equaly and worshipped to some extent, this decisive moment changed everything.

.

So why, didn't everyone at that moment get the right to vote??? can you answer this question?

.

---

.

The official reply from No Ma'am:

.

OK, first off, this whole vote thing is a red-herring that always gets thrown around. This is a typical bad argument because it takes ONE aspect of life and attempts to portray it as oppression while ignoring the whole picture. And when one steps back and looks at the whole picture, "oppression" disappears quite quickly.

.

Is it just the vote that all of oppression lies on? What about that during the same timeframe MEN passed laws making a 40-hour work week for women out of a humane nature, while men were still working in factories & mines from sun up to sun down? Doesn't that have to be taken into account in the whole oppression argument, or just the vote? How about the men (who had the vote) who looked on from the deck of the sinking Titanic at their wives (who didn't have the vote) who were nice and dry & being rowed away in the last of the lifeboats? Were those women oppressed compared to their vote-empowered husbands? I'll bet the husbands didn't feel very empowered as they gulped in that first breath of icy water into their lungs.

.

This constant harping on the vote as a means of illustrating "oppression" is ridiculous because it takes only one aspect of life and ignores all others, and then to really fuck things up, modern ideology rushes in to pass judgement on old world ideology without bothering to study ALL ASPECTS of old world ideology. Overall, there was a balance, which is why so many women were not interested in feminism back then either. It was a small group of radical harpies, pushing for change, just as is happening today. However, with the use of feminist revisionist herstory, the femnuts have focused only the downsides for women and focused only on the upside for men - while never acknowledging that there were also upsides for women and downsides for men.

.

But... since everyone always harps away about the vote, as if the vote is the ultimate in equality, while men having to do more dangerous labour for more hours and men being forced to die in place of women has apparently nothing to do with a lack of equality in certain male aspects of life... I will address the vote issue that all the harpies are always bursting into tears about.

.

First off, lets understand what we are talking about with "men's right to vote." Feminists make it sound so cut and dried, but it is not; it is very confusing.

So, let's have a look at just these facts, eh? Sure doesn't look like "Thousands of Years of Oppression" does it? In fact, there are only 64 years between when men had universal suffrage to when women had universal suffrage. 64 years! Also note that 87 years have passed since women got the right to vote. 87 years! So, lets put this into context, WOMEN HAVE BEEN BITCHING AT MEN FOR 36% LONGER OF TIME ABOUT NOT HAVING THE VOTE THAN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF TIME THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTE!!! Putting up with all of that endless fucking bitching and moaning has got to account for some sort oppression that women have perpetrated against men, dontcha think? Jeez... that's just as bad as being married to a woman!

.

Second, notice that adults between 18 and 21 didn't get to vote until 1971. Now there's some oppression for you. Think about all those boys who died in Vietnam, yet they didn't even have a voice in saying whether the country should be at war or not. Funny how this is never mentioned about "the vote." But, oh, that's right, in our "equal world," women don't get drafted and die fighting senseless wars... and since only WOMEN moan on and on about oppression for 36% longer than the actual so-called "oppression," this injustice is conveniently overlooked by our "equalitarian" lasses. If women had been subjected to the draft and died in Vietnam, I'm sure we'd hear the wailing over that for 87 fucking years too! That would be wailing until the year 2060!

.

.

Here is an interesting piece on what it took for men to get universal suffrage:

A strange sight greeted any resident of Providence, Rhode Island, bold enough to be out on an erie June night in 1842. Two brass cannons stood on College Street, pointing through a dense fog toward the city arsenal. Behind the weapons massed a huge crowd of workers and artisans, ready to march against their own government. It was 60 years after the American Revolution had supposedly established liberty across the United States. And yet, according to the mastermind of this little revolution, tyranny still reigned in Rhode Island.

.

Thomas Dorr, the renegade state legislator who had filled the streets with angry citizens, liked to point out the gap between the nation's ideals and its political practice. The Declaration of Independence declared that "All men are created equal," and demanded that government represent the people's interests. But in order to cast a vote in the new democracy, one had to be white (except in a few Northern states), male (except in New Jersey, where women voted until 1807), and a landowner (nearly everywhere). In some places, that left more than 85% of the adult population out of the political process.

.

Dorr, strangely enough, was not one of those left out. A Harvard University graduate and the son of a wealthy merchant, he made an unlikely revolutionary. But after a majority of landowning, white male voters elected him to the Rhode Island legislature, Dorr decided it was wrong for Rhode Island's poor to be denied the vote.

.

In October 1841, Dorr and voteless delegates from around the state met illegally and drafted a state constitution that gave the vote to all white males over 21. Six months later, two separate elections were held. Landowning voters elected Samuel Ward King as governor, while voters empowered by the "People's Charter" chose Dorr. Rhode Island had split down the middle.

.

- Showdown in the Fog -

.

In June, backed by 3,000 supporters and two stolen cannons, Dorr set out in the fog to disarm what he called the "illegal" government of Governor King. According to one observer, the showdown kept residents up all night "with watchful eyes and aching hearts, to await in the most painful suspense the dread spectacle of our fair city wrapt in flames and her streets deluged with blood."

.

The suspense did not last long. When Dorr's rusty cannons failed to fire, nearly everyone began to drift off, leaving Dorr and 50 of his supporters to drag the artillery back to their headquarters. Faced in the morning by 1,500 armed supporters of the King government, Dorr had to admit defeat. At his trial for treason, he spoke like a true martyr. "The servants of a righteous cause may fail or fall in defence of it," he told the court. "But the truth that it contains is indestructible."

.

Dorr went to prison, won a pardon after two years, and faded from public life. His cause, however, did seem indestructible. States that had not already dropped the property requirement began to do so quickly. Rhode Island held out until 1888. But by the time of the Civil War, nearly every white man in the country - rich or poor, rural or urban - could go to the polls on election day.

.

Well, Good Golly, Gosh Darn! Imagine that! And all that we hear in our feminized education system is about women's heroic struggles in order to get the right to vote! WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MEN? If this isn't a prime example of feminist's historical revisionism, in order to put forth the divide and conquer "oppression" mentality of Marxism, then I don't know what is!

.

Thousands of years of oppression, MY ASS!

.

Here in the Great White North (Canada), women actually had the right to vote before 1867, when we were a British colony, as women who owned property under English common-law were afforded the right to vote, though in some districts, they had to vote by proxy. When Canada became a country, women lost the right to vote for around 50 years, as they began to regain suffrage between 1916 and 1920, though, men did not have universal suffrage either, as can be seen from this piece:

In the colonies that would later form Canada, only a small part of the population could vote. The privelege was reserved mainly for affluent men. The franchise was generally based on property ownership: to be eligible to vote, an individual had to own property or other assets of a specified value. Paying a certain amount in annual taxes or rent could also qualify an elector. Women were excluded from the right to vote, as were various religious and ethnic groups. In the case of women, however, the exclusion was a matter of convention rather than law.

.

Canada adopted the universal right to vote in 1920 for citizens aged 21 years of age, but with several restrictions. The last restrictions were lifted in 1960.

.

(In case you are wondering what the last restrictions were, it had something to do with poverty - pauper's debts etc - people who reneged on their debts could not vote, and in fact, their debts could be sold - something like that, though don't quote me exactly on that.)

.

So, as we can see, this whole bullshit argument about the vote is just utter nonsense. It has been subjected to revisionist history in order to create a climate of anger towards men by accusing them of "patriarchal oppression" when really no such thing was around. The purpose of this revisionism comes directly from Karl Marx's theories of dividing and conquering by convincing one group that they are oppressed by the other.

.

Feminists have a lot to answer for, and I am not in the mood to hear their fucking shreiking about thousands of years of oppression any longer.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Way to go, Pippi, you are well on your way to illustrating the amorality of your gender. Yes, yes, keep at it, for supremacist women like you are doing a tremendous job at illustrating the phrase: "Women have been spending the past 40 years proving that men were right for the previous 4,000 years."

Perhaps Pippi got the notion for her supremacist lunacy of encouraging vigilantism from her Whimmins Studies classes, after she read the speach which the Gender Supremacists' Great Walrus, Andrea Dworkin, gave in Banff to the Canadian Mental Health Association back in 1991. (In case you are wondering, she was there speaking as an expert instead of as a case study - though, one would have thought that a lot of shrinks must have attended and must have recognized delusional behaviour, and yet they said nothing - Daddy's money for tuition was not well spent, was it?)

"I am asking you to stop passing: stop passing and having feminism be part of a secret life. I am asking you not to apologize to anyone for doing it. I am asking you to organize political support for women who kill men who have been hurting them. They have been isolated and alone. This is a political issue. They're being punished, because at some moment in their lives, they resisted a domination that they were expected to accept. They stand there in jail for us, for every one of us who got away without having to pull the trigger, for every one of us who got away without having the trigger on us. I'm asking you to stop men who beat women. Get them jailed or get them killed. But stop them. I am not asking you to be martyrs. I am saying that we have been talking for 20 years. And I am saying that men who rape make a choice to rape. And men who beat women make a choice to beat women. And we women now have choices that we have to make to fight back. And I am asking you to look at every single possibility for fighting back. Instead of saying that I asked him, I told him, but he just wouldn't stop. All right? We need to do it together. We need to find ways to do it together. But we need to do it."

(Btw, this speach REALLY IS part of Whimmins Studies. It was first published as "Terror, Torture and Resistance" in Canadian Woman Studies, Fall 1991, Volume 12, Number 1.) This is how your tax dollars are spent when the government gives YOUR money to academia!

Well, it looks as if Pippi got her degree in Bitch and Moan, alright. She probably even scored a 4.0 GPA.

To bad that Pippi doesn't spend some time filling her cotton candy brain with things like the law. It galls me that airheads like her, and big, fat walruses like Dworkin freely advocate for the killing of men vigilante style, something which is clearly illegal. And yet the same fucked up feminist movement advocates for the censorship of "masculist websites" because they advocate for fathers' rights to custody and speak out against feminism. http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/03/mcelroy060303.htm Free speach is a right, you fucktards, while what Pippi does, and what Dworkin did, are against the law - as they are advocating for women to utilize vigilante style justice to kill without a trial - for crimes that are not capital offences.

One wonders, in this day of equality, why Pippi doesn't get arrested? I wonder how long it would take for the police to darken my door if I started a blog titled "Dead Women Don't Make False Rape Allegations?" How about "Dead Wives Don't Require Alimony." Maybe even "Dead Feminists Don't Encourage Killing Men!" Personally, I think even children, who recieve the majority of their abuse from women, should start a teen site called "Dead Mothers Don't Hit."

Anyone want to wager how long it will take for the first woman to get off of a murder charge for killing some guy she shagged after having a few drinks? I mean, this is rape now. Women already get off the hook for setting guys on fire for abuse - and of course the "abuse" can be a dirty look, or basically doing anything that the supreme princess finds disagreable, in fact, NOW is trying to make it that even a man seeking custody of his own children be classified as abuse... so, why not start killing guys who've bumped uglies with a woman whose had a few drinks, he is a raaaaaypist after all...wah, wah, wah... I had to kill him, I felt so dirty, he raaaaaayped me! Wah, wah, wah!

I'm sorry to say it to all you ladies out there, but I really couldn't give a tinker's damn about any of you who are raaaaaayped or b-b-beaten anymore. You are all tripping over yourselves to claim that you have been raaaaayped or that your ex was abusive, or both. I just don't give a shit anymore. It is all an attention game and it is women who have let real rape & abuse victims down by playing up to all their attention whoring friends and rushing to hold their hand while they cry together. Guys will even call eachother on fishing lies, but women can't even call other women on the "dirty-look abuse" or the "3 drink rape" scenarios. And I certainly don't hear the average woman rushing to tell fucktards like Pippi or Dworkin to shut their big fat insane mouths. Rather, the average woman hears what these delusional bitches spew forth, then nod their heads and realize, HORROR, I had sex with my husband on our wedding night after drinking champagne... MAYBE I WAS RAAAAAYPED TOO! WAH, WAH, WAH! FEEL SORRY FOR ME!

Let them eat rape.

Even 10 year old boys understand the moral of the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

Women's amorality is truly disgusting, and "people" like Pippi and Dworkin illustrate this with intricate detail. Thanks feminists, for showing men how disgusting this aspect of women's behaviour is.

What's Wrong With The World -- G.K. Chesterton (excerpts)

Sex and Character -- by Otto Weininger

The Encyclopedia Marxofeminist

Feminist "Equality" Includes The Loss of Free Speech

If you are afraid to speak against tyranny, then you are already a slave. To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore. -- JBR Yant

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev

THE ANIMAL FARM REALITY OF "FEMINIST EQUALITY:"

"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, MAKE UNEQUAL TREATMENT NOT UNEQUAL AT ALL." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991

The Demographic Trap

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Josef Stalin

Back to the Bible

"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." -- V.I. Lenin

No Thanks - We'd Rather Be Canadian!

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ~Benjamin Franklin

Man-Made Global Warming is a Hoax being used to bring about Global Communism (Globalization)

"Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains." -- Herbert Hoover

Just Doing My Part to Fight Global Warming!

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

Rule by Science

Philosophy Corner

“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” -- Leon Trotsky

Dialectical Thought is a Cornerstone of Marxism, and Feminism (Because They Are One In the Same)

The Marxist Dialectic's Zig-Zag

Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of Christian Anti-Communism Crusade

The Pussy Pass

All's Fair In Love and War

The Matriarchy Lives! (Click Picture)

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection." -- Queen Victoria, 1870